Comments on: Inquisitor 1267: Woodchuck Puzzle by Plench

By: John H

John H — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:34:54 +0000

WOODCHUCK – THE FULL STORY…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crosswords/crossword-blog/2013/feb/28/crossword-blog-story-of-woodchuck-puzzle

By: regalize

regalize — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:56:18 +0000

Super-duper stuff from Plench. I almost sent off a message of complaint to the Editor – then I decided to to it the puzzle anyway, even though I could not remember what had happened yesterday, never mind last Saturday. Lovely sneaky, trickery stuff. Vive l’Inquisitor! Thank you Plench, whoever you are and to kenmac for a VERY interesting,informative blog.

By: Bertandjoyce

Bertandjoyce — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:15:30 +0000

This was a brilliant puzzle in our humble opinion. We had the same sense of deja vu and wondered how we were going to survive the weekend without an Inquisitor! Then we realised how stupid WE were – and not the editor – sorry John!

We opted to highlight deja vu for the pure and simple reason that we didn’t see our shadow! So…… it must be the end of Winter here in the East Midlands – pity that the weather forecasters don’t think the same way.

It doesn’t really bother us either way as we have never sent off the completed puzzle – the pleasure is all in the solving – and what pleasure it was this week!

Thanks Plench and kenmac for the super blog!

By: NormanLinFrance

NormanLinFrance — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:10:19 +0000

This was my second Inquisitor, the first woodchuck being the first. Excellent (as is the blog). I didn’t spot the shadow, though.

By: HolyGhost

HolyGhost — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:06:01 +0000

OK Ken – one last time (then I’ll give up):
Yesterday was winter; given a choice between today also being winter or not being winter, the first alternative is more consistent with “A day when things seem to happen in exactly the same way as on the previous day.” Therefore the shadow is seen (by the groundhog).

Hihoba at #9: I agree that “alternative” in the final sentence of the preamble could refer to highlight/not highlight, but if so the reference to “alternatives” in the third sentence: “in the first meaning (in which two alternatives are implied)” is left unresolved/redundant.

A great pair of puzzles marred by a fuzzy rubric?

By: jon surdy

jon surdy — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:14:09 +0000

Kenmac, thanks for NINA info – never come across it before.

By: starburst

starburst — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:38:27 +0000

A quite brilliant puzzle, and one that tricked me into firing off an ill-advised email to Mr Henderson before I realised my error. His patience was exemplary

Bravo

By: kenmac

kenmac — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:23:03 +0000

I’m swaying more towards SHADOW but despite H___ G____’s explanation I still fail to understand what that has to do with the second definition. Perhaps we were meant to highlight (or not) depending on whether Phil saw his shadow, which he didn’t.

Since I didn’t send off my entry, it hardly matters to me.

It will be interesting to read the explanation in the paper next week – long may the great groundhog debate of 2013 continue!

By: Crosophile

Crosophile — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:07:55 +0000

The preamble says “In choosing whether or not to highlight a further six cells, solvers must opt for the alternative [i.e. seeing the shadow or not seeing the shadow] that is ALSO more consistent with the second meaning.”
I can’t see there’s anything about DEJA VU in the first meaning.

By: Hi of hihoba

Hi of hihoba — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:29:15 +0000

HG, I read the preamble as meaning that I had to highlight/not highlight (the alternative) something consistent with the SECOND Chambers meaning of Groundhog Day – i.e. the same thing happening again in the same way – DÉJÀ VU.

The first meaning is the only one that refers to the shadow, which tells the end of Winter.

I’m not saying this is right, but that is how I saw it, and I suspect Ken did too.